Adrian Michael Lightfoot and Lightington Pty Ltd CAN 093 428 758 as Trustee for the Lightfoot Family Trust v Tamworth Shoppingworld Pty Ltd CAN 083 770 021 and Byron Clapham [2016] NSWDC 45

Adrian Michael Lightfoot and Lightington Pty Ltd CAN 093 428 758 as Trustee for the Lightfoot Family Trust v Tamworth Shoppingworld Pty Ltd CAN 083 770 021 and Byron Clapham [2016] NSWDC 45

The first defendant owed the plaintiff an occupier's duty of reasonable care and breached it because, although a 20 minute cleaning inspection system was reasonable, its system failed to provide a protocol for warning, guarding or barricading an identified spill during the period between notification to the cleaner and cleaning. The risk that an entrant would slip on vomit was foreseeable and not insignificant, and the breach was a necessary condition of the plaintiff's injury. The second defendant was also liable because, once the security guard was informed of the spill and contacted the cleaner, he knew or should have known that failure to remain at the spill and warn entrants created...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Negligence Claim for Damages Arising From Slip and Fall in Shopping Centre, With Mutual Cross Claims for Indemnity or Contribution / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Verdict and judgment for the first plaintiff against the defendants for $90,815.00; both defendants found negligent and equally responsible; no reduction for contributory negligence; second plaintiff's claim dismissed.
Legal Topics
['slip and Fall in Shopping Centre' "occupier's Negligence" "contractor's Liability" 'duty of Care' 'breach of Duty' 'causation' 'obvious Risk' 'contributory Negligence' 'assessment of Damages' 'cross Claims for Contribution']
['tort Law' 'negligence' "occupiers' Liability" 'civil Liability' 'damages'] ['slip and Fall in Shopping Centre' "occupier's Negligence" "contractor's Liability" 'duty of Care' 'breach of Duty' 'causation' 'obvious Risk' 'contributory Negligence' 'assessment of Damages' 'cross Claims for Contribution']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil Negligence Claim for Damages Arising From Slip and Fall in Shopping Centre, With Mutual Cross Claims for Indemnity or Contribution / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the first defendant, as owner and occupier of the shopping centre, breached its duty of care by failing to implement a system for warning or guarding against an identified spill before it was cleaned.' 'Whether the second defendant was vicariously liable for negligence of the security guard who was notified of the spill and contacted the cleaner but moved away from the spill.' 'Whether the liquid or vomit on the floor was an obvious risk under the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW).' 'Whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent.' 'What damages should be awarded to the first plaintiff.' 'What costs orders should be made after the second plaintiff abandoned its claim.']

Ratio Decidendi

The first defendant owed the plaintiff an occupier's duty of reasonable care and breached it because, although a 20 minute cleaning inspection system was reasonable, its system failed to provide a protocol for warning, guarding or barricading an identified spill during the period between notification to the cleaner and cleaning. The risk that an entrant would slip on vomit was foreseeable and not insignificant, and the breach was a necessary condition of the plaintiff's injury. The second defendant was also liable because, once the security guard was informed of the spill and contacted the cleaner, he knew or should have known that failure to remain at the spill and warn entrants created...

Court Disposition

Verdict and judgment for the first plaintiff against the defendants for $90,815.00; both defendants found negligent and equally responsible; no reduction for contributory negligence; second plaintiff's claim dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Verdict and Judgment in favour of the first plaintiff against the defendants in the sum of $90,815.00.' "The defendants are to pay the first plaintiff's costs of the proceedings." 'Verdict for the First Cross-Claimant on the First Cross-Claim in favour of the First Cross-Claimant in the sum of $44,500.00.' 'The...